Kavanaugh hearing

[Joe]

Joe you are wasting your time. Nice try but as always with Trumpets they will not see the truth.
Any cunt with even a suggestion of what Kavanaugh has done is not fit for any office but that is OIA for you.

What does OIA mean?

[Forty Two]

I discount unsupported assertions as a rule, regardless of bias, although in recognition of your "accomplishments," I apply extra skepticism.

Good, then we are in agreement in rejecting Dr. Blas' unsupported assertions?

Absolutely, I discount them for lack of evidence, and have said so.

The link I provided establishes the concerns, your unsupported assertions notwithstanding. As for the lies in Kavanaugh's testimony, I provided ample evidence of that in a previous response to you.

Interesting that you've forgotten that.

I hadn't forgotten - but, you think that is "ample evidence" of Kavanaugh "lying?" If you do, then you can't possibly credit anything Dr. Ford says worth a damn, because if you think anything you posted proves or even tends to show Kavanaugh lied, I think you need to reexamine it.

1. Ludington - you quoted him as saying the he witnessed Kavanaugh in a bar get in a dispute and rather than diffuse it, Kavanaugh escalated and threw a beer at him. Only, that's refuted by the police report, which says he was accused of throwing ice, but did not confirm that he had done so. Only, he never said that didn't happen. He did not lie about it.

2. The article that you linked to, crediting Seabass, was pathetic. The first lie they say he told was denying that he was at party like the one described by Ford. They say this is a lie because he had been to high school parties where people drank beer and got together at houses. Obviously, this is not a lie - Kavanaugh admitted to regularly drinking beer, to excess and attending parties. His denial was not to ever attending a get together. His denial was to attending the party Ford said he attended, or anything like it - he has to answer that way, because Ford's accusation is so ridiculously vague that he can't do anything but generally deny it - she doesn't say where it is, when it is, and she's not consistent with who was there or how many people were there. To say that's a lie is simply absurd.

The writer goes on to say that because Kavanaugh attended a July 1 party with OTHER PEOPLE and PJ and Mark Judge, that he must be lying when he says he didn't attend a party like the one alleged by Ford. This is stupid. That party was at night -- the party that Ford alleges was -- as the writer of the article describes - a "pre-party" at someone's house - during the day - and Ford herself says it was early in the day, because she was not at that time allowed to go out later at night - when she said Kavanaugh's parties generally occurred. So, the writer says basically - "Kavanaugh denied going to a party like the one described by Ford, but he did go to other parties, so he's a liar." You don't actually credit that as making sense, do you?

Then he says Kavanaugh lied when he said that Keyser said it didn't happen, because the writer says that Keyser said I don't remember any such party, and I never met Kavanaugh. So, her own statement shows that Kavanaugh is right - if Keyser "never met Kavanaugh" then she couldn't have been at this party Ford describes, because if she was, then she would have met kavanaugh - Ford herself says Kavanaugh and Judge were downstairs talking to the other party goers - PJ, Keyser and the host. So, logically, Keyser could not have been at the party if she never met Kavanaugh. They say that Keyser later said she "believes" Ford's allegations (I assume that means that she was attacked by Kavanaugh), but that doesn't have anything to do with attendance at the party, does it? She believes that Ford was attacked, but it logically was not at a party Keyser was in attendance at because if she was there she would have met Kavanaugh and she unequivocally said she did not.

The next specific lie that is referenced is supposedly Kavanaugh wanting to give the impression that he was not an excessive or rowdy drinker. That's not accurate. Kavanaugh said he wasn't "black out" drunk. He admitted very clearly that he drank a lot in high school, excessively. He simply did not lie about his drinking.

The article posted fails to identify a single false representation.

It's better - instead of just posting links to giant articles and saying here's the proof - if you think he lied, then link to the article but actually type a post about what you think an example or two of the best lies are. He lied when he said X, because [insert reason we know it's a lie]. That article you linked to was long, but did not identify a lie.

I mean - the article says that when he says he may have met Keyser in high school, he must be lying because he should have said, I know of her now, but I don't recall meeting her in high school. the article says he was trying to deceive us, because he said that he remmbers her, but doesn't know where he met her. The writer thinks he's being evasive and trying to avoid a connection with Ford. That's what the writer calls a "lie". According to this writer, Ford can forget almost everything pertinent to the event in question, but Kavanaugh has to remember where he met Leland Keyser, or he's lying.

And I dismiss these unsupported assertions as well. Perhaps you'd be better served by actually providing supporting evidence.

As it is, you offer only "pure, unadulterated bullshit."

Joe, you aren't been truthful here. My assertions were unsupported? Not in the least. Take the Ludington allegation - there was a police report at the time, and it referred to throwing ice, not beer. Kavanaugh was not arrested. Kavanaugh never said this didn't happen. He never said he wasn't a heavy drinker - what he denied was blacking out. The evidence for that is Kavanaugh's testimony. Do you need me to quote it?

What do you think Kavanaugh lied about? Can you provide a quote or paraphrase of a single one? The article didn't.

[laklak]

"Only In America". Scot uses it so often he got tired of typing in all in.

[Forty Two]

I'm wondering why the FBI agents investigating Ms Ford's claims will not be speaking to Ms Ford. Is it because if they gather a statement from Ms Ford then they'll have to gather one from Mr Kavanaugh too, and given the FBI's powers it might be harder for him to dodge questions from an FBI investigator than from a senate committee?

It's not like the FBI had subpoena powers, or that lying to them was lying while under oath...

The reason the FBI isn't going to take a new statement is that Ford has already been interviewed under oath, given a narrative opening statement, and been asked probing questions about it. She was asked if there was anything else about the incident in question that she remembers. She said no.

Her lawyers being up in arms about the FBI not re-interviewing her is curious. What does she need to add? Will she be restating her testimony, or is there something new to include?

It's crocodile tears, anyway. They'd be chirping and carping about the FBI interviewing her again, claiming they are oppressing and torturing her in some way because they already have her story. Any changes to her story can only hurt her credibility, and repeating the same story is a waste of time. She's better off not being reinterviewed and her lawyers know it.

Has her memory improved? Is that why she wants to be asked again?

[Seabass]

Surprise! Hobbled investigation turns out how you'd expect.

WaPo: Here’s a list of people the FBI did NOT interview. Okay with this, Flake and Collins?

[Forty Two]

"Only In America". Scot uses it so often he got tired of typing in all in.

Yes, only in America - in the Netherregions they do things properly, by automatically disqualifying candidates for appointed office on the basis of three or four decade old unsupported, uncorroborated allegations. Can't be too careful, and if he wasn't guilty of something, he wouldn't have an allegation leveled against him, now would he?

[laklak]

If his head had just been pinched off at birth none of this would have happened.

[Tero]

This just in!
Brett Kavanaugh has a note from his Mom!
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2018/10/ ... s-mom.html

[Joe]

I discount unsupported assertions as a rule, regardless of bias, although in recognition of your "accomplishments," I apply extra skepticism.

Good, then we are in agreement in rejecting Dr. Blas' unsupported assertions?

Absolutely, I discount them for lack of evidence, and have said so.

The link I provided establishes the concerns, your unsupported assertions notwithstanding. As for the lies in Kavanaugh's testimony, I provided ample evidence of that in a previous response to you.

Interesting that you've forgotten that.

I hadn't forgotten - but, you think that is "ample evidence" of Kavanaugh "lying?" If you do, then you can't possibly credit anything Dr. Ford says worth a damn, because if you think anything you posted proves or even tends to show Kavanaugh lied, I think you need to reexamine it.

1. Ludington - you quoted him as saying the he witnessed Kavanaugh in a bar get in a dispute and rather than diffuse it, Kavanaugh escalated and threw a beer at him. Only, that's refuted by the police report, which says he was accused of throwing ice, but did not confirm that he had done so. Only, he never said that didn't happen. He did not lie about it.

2. The article that you linked to, crediting Seabass, was pathetic. The first lie they say he told was denying that he was at party like the one described by Ford. They say this is a lie because he had been to high school parties where people drank beer and got together at houses. Obviously, this is not a lie - Kavanaugh admitted to regularly drinking beer, to excess and attending parties. His denial was not to ever attending a get together. His denial was to attending the party Ford said he attended, or anything like it - he has to answer that way, because Ford's accusation is so ridiculously vague that he can't do anything but generally deny it - she doesn't say where it is, when it is, and she's not consistent with who was there or how many people were there. To say that's a lie is simply absurd.

The writer goes on to say that because Kavanaugh attended a July 1 party with OTHER PEOPLE and PJ and Mark Judge, that he must be lying when he says he didn't attend a party like the one alleged by Ford. This is stupid. That party was at night -- the party that Ford alleges was -- as the writer of the article describes - a "pre-party" at someone's house - during the day - and Ford herself says it was early in the day, because she was not at that time allowed to go out later at night - when she said Kavanaugh's parties generally occurred. So, the writer says basically - "Kavanaugh denied going to a party like the one described by Ford, but he did go to other parties, so he's a liar." You don't actually credit that as making sense, do you?

Then he says Kavanaugh lied when he said that Keyser said it didn't happen, because the writer says that Keyser said I don't remember any such party, and I never met Kavanaugh. So, her own statement shows that Kavanaugh is right - if Keyser "never met Kavanaugh" then she couldn't have been at this party Ford describes, because if she was, then she would have met kavanaugh - Ford herself says Kavanaugh and Judge were downstairs talking to the other party goers - PJ, Keyser and the host. So, logically, Keyser could not have been at the party if she never met Kavanaugh. They say that Keyser later said she "believes" Ford's allegations (I assume that means that she was attacked by Kavanaugh), but that doesn't have anything to do with attendance at the party, does it? She believes that Ford was attacked, but it logically was not at a party Keyser was in attendance at because if she was there she would have met Kavanaugh and she unequivocally said she did not.

The next specific lie that is referenced is supposedly Kavanaugh wanting to give the impression that he was not an excessive or rowdy drinker. That's not accurate. Kavanaugh said he wasn't "black out" drunk. He admitted very clearly that he drank a lot in high school, excessively. He simply did not lie about his drinking.

The article posted fails to identify a single false representation.

It's better - instead of just posting links to giant articles and saying here's the proof - if you think he lied, then link to the article but actually type a post about what you think an example or two of the best lies are. He lied when he said X, because [insert reason we know it's a lie]. That article you linked to was long, but did not identify a lie.

I mean - the article says that when he says he may have met Keyser in high school, he must be lying because he should have said, I know of her now, but I don't recall meeting her in high school. the article says he was trying to deceive us, because he said that he remmbers her, but doesn't know where he met her. The writer thinks he's being evasive and trying to avoid a connection with Ford. That's what the writer calls a "lie". According to this writer, Ford can forget almost everything pertinent to the event in question, but Kavanaugh has to remember where he met Leland Keyser, or he's lying.

And I dismiss these unsupported assertions as well. Perhaps you'd be better served by actually providing supporting evidence.

As it is, you offer only "pure, unadulterated bullshit."

Joe, you aren't been truthful here. My assertions were unsupported? Not in the least. Take the Ludington allegation - there was a police report at the time, and it referred to throwing ice, not beer. Kavanaugh was not arrested. Kavanaugh never said this didn't happen. He never said he wasn't a heavy drinker - what he denied was blacking out. The evidence for that is Kavanaugh's testimony. Do you need me to quote it?

What do you think Kavanaugh lied about? Can you provide a quote or paraphrase of a single one? The article didn't.

Forty Two, you have a whole excerpt making the case for Kavanaugh lying, and you calling it pathetic and complaining about its size doesn't do a thing to discredit it. Moreover, given the number of times the except directly quotes Kavanaugh's testimony, your last assertion is demonstrably false.

Since you're the fan of point-by-point rebuttals, I suggest you take that excerpt, break it down, and provide a counterargument to each specific case the author documents. I doubt you will do this, because you aren't able to challenge it on substance, but perhaps you will surprise me by rising to the occasion.

Then I can point you at the other half of the excerpt.

[Cunt]

Newsflash - no matter what happens, Tero thinks Kavanaugh is icky.

From the auspicious blog...

His mom was very brave to write the not, but of course it was in 1982.

It appears to have been authored by someone who couldn't find an editor. I wonder if the article can be examined for other inaccuracies.

demonstrably false

Um...usually, when someone says this, it is because they have demostrated something. So far, all I've seen is you quoting a weak article, and insisting it makes your points for you.

[Forty Two]

What do you think Kavanaugh lied about? Can you provide a quote or paraphrase of a single one? The article didn't.

Forty Two, you have a whole excerpt making the case for Kavanaugh lying, and you calling it pathetic and complaining about its size doesn't do a thing to discredit it. Moreover, given the number of times the except directly quotes Kavanaugh's testimony, your last assertion is demonstrably false.[/quote]

It isn't false because, as I pointed out in my detailed response, the things that Kavanaugh actually said were not refuted. I went point by point. You're not bothering to look at it - which is why I would like to try to make this easier to handle - which "lie" from the article would you like to start with? Let's take it one at a time.

Since you're the fan of point-by-point rebuttals, I suggest you take that excerpt, break it down, and provide a counterargument to each specific case the author documents.

I did, in my lengthy response. You aren't bothering to address any points at all. You just want to hold up the article and wave it around. The first point - the Ludington allegation - that doesn't counter anything Kavanaugh said, and the article does not quote him on that point. Ludington says Kavanaugh was a big drinker and got into this dispute in the bar. The article does not quote Kavanauch denying it. The only thing Kavanaugh denied is being a black out drunk. The article provides no refutation of that. It's the equivocation that is common on this issue - "so and so saw Kavanaugh getting drunk at parties!!! See Kavanaugh lied!" But, Kavanaugh repeatedly said he got drunk at parties. He just said he didn't black out, which is totally different.

I doubt you will do this, because you aren't able to challenge it on substance, but perhaps you will surprise me by rising to the occasion.

Did you not read my post? I mean - I'll be happy to go over it, if you'll participate in the conversation.

Then I can point you at the other half of the excerpt.

Point away.

[Forty Two]

Joe, let's address points from the article you posted:

The article says

Here is what he says: “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

The article says that he's lying because he was at other parties where other people, and some of the same folks (PJ and Mark Judge) were in attendance. I mean, to start with this is monumentally disingenuous. How in the world, Joe, does the fact that Kavanaugh went to high school parties translate into he was lying when he says he never attended a gathering like the one Ford describes in her allegation? He wasn't there, and and that means he wasn't anywhere - Blasey Ford isn't specific as to whose house and when it is - all that Kavanaugh can say is that he was not at a gathering like the one described by Ford. That doesn't mean the guy wasn't at any roughly similar parties - like - get togethers with other friends where they drank beer. Does it? I mean, does it? Surely you'll admit that the article does not illustrate a lie here.

So - go ahead - explain how Kavanaugh's statement "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation" has been demonstrated to be untrue. Remember, the authoer said "I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate."

So - point me to it.

[Cunt]

I would stick to a simpler question, Forty Two. Let me have a go to see if 'Joe' is a rational person, or worthy of being lumped in with pErvinalia and Tero...

Joe, what kind of evidence could change your mind about this issue?

[Tero]

It's all fixed now. We have unpaid staff here at the Kari office.

[Cunt]

It's all fixed now. We have unpaid staff here at the Kari office.

Interns? Slaves?

Doesn't matter, they are still your responsibility. You are the one who quoted the messed-up article in the first place...

I'm guessing you are colluding with the Russians in an effort to discredit Ford.